Cook v. Robinson
Decision Date | 24 June 1985 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 85-0467-R. |
Parties | Judy D. COOK, Administratrix of the Estate of Patricia Ann Romig, Deceased v. Cynthia ROBINSON, Individually and in her official capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Richmond, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Carl J. Witmeyer, II, Witmeyer, Webb & Phillips, Richmond, Va., for plaintiff.
John Oakey, Jr., Christopher Spencer, McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, Va., for defendant.
Presently before the Court is a matter filed by plaintiffs on 23 May 1985 styled as Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants' Petition for Removal, which this Court will treat as a motion to remand.
This action was initially brought in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond on 25 March 1985 and removed to this Court on 10 May 1985. The action in State court was brought against five defendants: Cynthia Robinson, individually and in her official capacity as a police officer of the City of Richmond; the City of Richmond; Starling King, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of the City of Richmond; John Doe, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of the City of Richmond; and Jane Doe, individually and in her official capacity as a police officer of the City of Richmond.1
28 U.S.C. § 1441 defines those actions that are removable from State to federal court. Section 1441 provides in pertinent part:
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires, in pertinent part, that: "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction, the district court shall remand the case, and may order the payment of just cost."
28 U.S.C. § 1446 prescribes the procedures to be followed by parties seeking removal. The applicable provisions of that section provide:
Defendants' petition for removal contains a number of irregularities. Only petitioners Robinson, King, and the City of Richmond joined in the petition for removal. All defendants in a federal question case must join in the petition to remove. See Aguiar v. Evans, 607 F.Supp. 1418, 1420 (E.D.Va.1985). Defendants joining in the petition of course will argue that John Doe and Jane Doe, since they are unknown parties, cannot join in a petition. However, while the Does failed to join in the petition for removal, an answer was filed for them by counsel for the known defendants and the answer seeks relief for the Does. The removal bond mentioned "defendants," which I take to mean all defendants, despite the absence of the Does from the petition for removal. There is no indication in the record whether the Does have been served under applicable State procedure. If they in fact have not been served and if they are proper parties in this action, they would have the thirty day period established under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) to join the petition for removal. See Balestrieri v. Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., 544 F.Supp. 528, 529-30 (E.D.Pa.1982).
However, because I determine that defendants Robinson, King, and the City of Richmond did not properly remove the action it must be remanded regardless of the necessity of Does joining in the petition and regardless of what they may subsequently do under § 1446.
Forty-six days elapsed between the time this action was initially filed in State court and its removal to this Court. Defendants are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
California Republican Party v. Mercier
...that federal civil rights claims are removable. Langford v. Gates, 610 F.Supp. 120, 122 (C.D.Cal.1985); see also, Cook v. Robinson, 612 F.Supp. 187, 188-89 (E.D.Va. 1985); Baldi v. City of Philadelphia, 609 F.Supp. 162, 168 (E.D.Pa.1985); Routh v. City of Parkville, 580 F.Supp. 876, 877 (W.......
-
Courtney v. Benedetto
..."failure to join in or consent to removal was a substantial defect in the removal proceeding." Id. Furthermore, in Cook v. Robinson, 612 F.Supp. 187, 190 (D.C.Va.1985), the court refused to allow an amendment under § 1653 to allege that the original petition for removal was timely stating t......
-
Castle v. Laurel Creek Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 3:94-0162.
...F.Supp. 952, 953 (D.S.C.1988) (cure of a defective petition for removal must be made within thirty days to be timely); Cook v. Robinson, 612 F.Supp. 187, 190 (E.D.Va.1985); Hubbard v. Tripp, 611 F.Supp. 895, 896 (E.D.Va. 1985); Mason v. International Business Machines, Inc., 543 F.Supp. 444......
-
Gleichauf v. Ginsberg, Civ. A. No. 3:94-0481.
...over the matter in dispute."); California Republican Party v. Mercier, 652 F.Supp. 928, 932 (C.D.Cal.1986); Cook v. Robinson, 612 F.Supp. 187, 189 n. 2 (E.D.Va.1985); Routh v. City of Parkville, Mo., 580 F.Supp. 876, 877 (W.D.Mo.1984) ("It stretches current statutory language past the break......